You may or may not laugh, but you know the law of unintended consequences?
By referring to terrorists as "militants", folks haven't decided that these guys aren't terrorists, they just made the world militant a synonym for terrorist.
I didn't hear about this till today, when a couple of friends, including one who is a grade school teacher was saying its a problem, since almost all of the 1960's guys (i.e. Malcom X, etc) were defined as, and defined themselves...as militants.
Its going to be interesting this school year seeing how to explain to kids that there are different type of militants, without saying one is good or bad, while hoping they don't link all militants including african american civil rights leaders as terrorists.
I didn't hear about this till today, when a couple of friends, including one who is a grade school teacher was saying its a problem, since almost all of the 1960's guys (i.e. Malcom X, etc) were defined as, and defined themselves...as militants.
Precisely. It is unfair to lump a militant like Malcolm X in among the likes of the Weather Underground and the Symbionese Liberation Army, which were domestic terror groups that actually killed people in cold blood.
I don't believe for a second that people such as Hollins and Keshishian truly believe there is any imbiguity about the word "terrorist." The term simply describes a particular type of combatant, similar to the terms "guerilla" or "mercenary". The etymology is so simple a grade school kid could get it.
What the lefties like them don't want is the built-in prejudice that the word "terrorist" invokes. They either don't have the courage, the intelligence, or the honesty to make a comprehensive case that actions by Western nations may be just as "evil," so they just crank up the political correctness machine and try to equalize the indefensible.